This item was written by Matt Taibbi who is one of the few investigative journalists left in the country.
Had a friend send me this article by former Republican staffer Mike Lofgren under the subject line, “Informative reading for tonight’s Republican showcase.” I’m probably late in seeing it, but Lofgren’s piece raises fascinating and terrifying questions about the future of our political system and the increasing possibility that we are headed toward something like a civil war, or a constitutional crisis.
Lofgren, in describing the reasons for his defection from the Republican party, describes a Republican camp that increasingly acts not like a traditional peacetime political organization, but more like an apocalyptic cult or one of the authoritarian movements from early 20th century European history.
[…]
As Lofgren notes, this was insurrectionary, revolutionary behavior. Only the massive scale of the gambit prevented it from being easily identified as terrorism and criminal blackmail. If in exchange for not defaulting on our debt Boehner, Hensarling, Cantor and the rest of them had asked for a billion dollars worth of gold bullion deposited in Swiss bank accounts, or the release of a dozen Baader-Meinhofs from German prisons, it could hardly have been much different from what they actually did.
[…]
Had Obama invoked emergency powers to raise the debt limit unilaterally – and I think he had good reasons to do that – we might have had a revolt on our hands.Most people aren’t thinking about this because we’re so accustomed to thinking of America as a stable, conservative place where politics is not a life-or-death affair but more something that people like to argue about over dinner, as entertainment almost. But it’s headed in another, more twisted direction. I’m beginning to wonder if this election season is going to be one none of us ever forget – a 1968 on crack.
Bobbo,
Before for you open mouth and insert foot (due to your partisan viewpoint), keep in mind I’m pointing out hypocrisy with the Obama administration concerning the same company in both cases.
Through in that he’s trying to foster jobs in the U.S. and none of what he’s doing is making any sense.
But sure, increase taxes on individuals making at least $200k or households making $250k is somehow grounded in “reality” as he tries to foster job growth in this country. 🙂
Bobbo, Boeing didn’t close any plants. That was WalMart that closed a store after it unionized.
And just which party is promoting class warfare?
Hint.. starts with D.
#85 rs
Yes, if we tear down the social safety net, allow corporations to run roughshod over people and the environment, slant foreign policy to enrich defense contractors, enhance corporate personhood rights while restricting individual liberties, increase the wealth disparity, and adjust tax policy to further benefit wealthy people and corporations….
Its not warfare if we don’t fight back. Shame on us for not rolling over! How dare anyone promote *warfare* by mentioning and debating *facts!*
#67, smith
How I hate liars.
Golly, where do I begin…. Do I discuss the $5 billion invested by an oil company to drill off Alaska, only to be killed by an arbitrary ruling from an oversite committee?
An “Oversight Committee”? Now that sounds like a legal opinion to me. And $56 Billion? One question, WHO?
Or how about Boeing being forbidden from building a plant in South Carolina by NLRB.
Boeing violated a union contract and Federal Labor law. The Judge ruled this violated the rights of the employees in Washington.
Or all of those “shovel ready jobs” that aren’t shovel ready becasue it takes 5 years to work through all of the environmental red tape.
Gee, as with your first example, you don’t list WHO or WHAT. That makes it real easy for you to put out blatant accusations and impossible for anyone else to counter. Yet, as with so many other Tea Bagger claims, lying is second nature after ranting about Obama being a commie.
How about this one, because it’s a story repeated all over the country….
Power company completes the required paper work and environmental studies and receives an air permit to build a coal-fired power plant. After the permit is granted an environmental activist group challenges the permit because the company didn’t consider a different process technology as part of their BACT. Five years later, they are given permission by the regulators to go ahead with the project, but then they are sued by the same environmental group because they didn’t comply with environmental regs that say construction must begin within 3 years of getting their air permit.
Wow, you just don’t quit. Which plant is this.
Oh, and BTW, coal is a dirty fuel. It can be made cleaner but the power companies don’t want to because then they would have to clean up their older plants. Although things have improved in the last 20 years, coal still accounts for a large number of asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses.
#82–Guyver==sorry I missed this thread in my review.
After messing up your facts and the point about what is being said, at least you are rational. Hmmm. Rationality. Lots of folks talking about that term recently, I wonder why? Mike???
Guyver said, on September 13th, 2011 at 6:33 am
79, Bobbo,
Do you think employers should be able to close plants in retaliation for union activity?
All employers should have the right to open / close plants in places looking for investment from employers (regardless of what any union may say). //// Well, thats not what established law says. If you want to close a plant in Seattle Washington to punish the workers there for bargaining excessive terms and open up a new plant to do nothing that can’t be done in the old plant, thats called retaliation. Not an independent business decision. All part of leveling the playing field on which the Super Rich and the Corps have much too much advantage. At least they ought to follow the law???
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do you think Boeings technology is worth multiples of the profit on 5 Billion, and if you do, at what price was Europe willing to provide the technology?
Let the free market decide; not Obamanomics.//// Free Market greed, avarice, and self dealing is NOT the basis for International Trade Agreements. In fact, each “element” of the economy should bring its skill and interests to the table acting as a check and balance on the other. There is a national interest in every big dollar transaction that goes on. Like I said: reality–not a sophomoric dedication to dogma.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
ain’t reality a bitch?===although, I don’t think its much of an issue for you.
Strange how you defend not letting a plant open up in South Carolina to provide for more U.S. jobs, but you seem indifferent to relocating jobs to Brazil. 🙂 //// Your facts are wrong. High paid union jobs lost in Seattle getting replaced by lower paid, tax subsidized, jobs in South Carolina represents our race to the bottom–not creation of new jobs.
Yeah==reality. Its a bitch.
88, Bobbo,
Isn’t that allegedly? And even if it wasn’t so, no one has stopped work on the Washington side. So unless actual retaliation is proven, it’s a moot point.
I do not care how “super rich” or “super poor” an employer is. No one has actually said Boeing is breaking the law. It’s an accusation. Are you saying guilty until proven innocent? If you want to talk reality, if you are an airline and you want to order a new 787, the waitlist is over ten years long. Is that practical for Boeing? Should Boeing put all their eggs in one basket and build another facility in Washington where the union has been a thorn in their side? Nope. The problem is the Union feels that Boeing should give the state of Washington exclusive employment.
You asked about what Boeing technology is worth. I answered that.
AGAIN, it’s strange how you’re indifferent about giving lower paid tax subsidized jobs to Brazilians instead of other Americans in the wake of Obama’s job plan.
If you had your facts together, you’d realize that Boeing MUST build another plant in order to get their wait queue down to something more reasonable for the airlines who have pre-ordered for them. Washington workers nor the Union is not entitled to those EXTRA jobs. People are still working in Seattle and that plant won’t be closing down due to the 787 demand.
So really, it’s much ado about nothing and it’s about Obama forcing an employer to keep their business in certain states (all while jobs will be leaving the country along with proprietary tech to Brazilians instead of Americans)
Yeah, reality is a b1tch. 🙂
No one has actually proven that Boeing is breaking the law.
That said, Boeing has also said the plant in South Carolina would not cost any new jobs in Washington and that the South Carolina plant would only supplement the Washington plant. The latter producing 70% of the aircraft annually if both plants were running.
The union wants none of that and is demanding all 787s be built in Washington exclusively. Ha!